Climate change News

Bill Nye the Science Guy on Science-Deniers

Spread the love

Yeah, from Newsweek (still exists):

To those who grew up in the 1990s, Bill Nye the Science Guy was a television staple and its star a fount of scientific discovery. Today, Nye continues working in a similar vein, albeit offscreen, as CEO of the Planetary Society, a nonprofit that …

What’s the one thing you thought scientists would have figured out by now that hasn’t been yet?

I certainly thought we would make a lot more progress with respect to climate change. I wrote about climate change in 1993 in a book for kids and hardly anything’s been done about it. And I’m also surprised that we still have such a large population of science deniers in the United States.

It would be worse in Canada if the country had more people. It will be single digits overnight in Ottawa all next week. Nice try.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Bill Nye the Science Guy on Science-Deniers

  1. 1
    JDH says:

    I love the term “Science denier” because I can’t think of any phrase which more significantly contradicts materialism.

    1. Science : the very practice of it requires thought, planning, choosing. All things only possible for an intelligent agent. If they claim they are practicing science they must have free will.

    2. Denier : The very practice of “denial” implies a choice by an intelligent agent. We must ask who or what is doing the denying. Why do I have the freedom of choice to neglect observations if I don’t have a free will.

    I am not saying that all people who label others as “science deniers” have an incoherent argument. Just the ones who claim materialism as their basis.

    The very name they call others undermines their argument.

  2. 2
    TimT says:

    Bill Nye is a science denier, and I think people should always add this phrase when they mention him.

  3. 3
    Dr JDD says:

    Science denier is a form of a strawman caricature as it forces or seeks to implant the idea that if you disagree with one aspect of an ad populum theory, you disagree with all ad populum theories.

    This is a common tactic of the materialist. “You don’t subscribe to one small aspect that many scienists affirm therefore you deny all science.”

    Ironically history is not on the side of the proponent of such an argument. For example, the concensus used to say that the sun orbited the earth, the earth was flat, the mitochondria did not arise through a symbiotic event, and the selfish gene and simple natural selection could account for all evolution. Yet all of those things are no longer the concensus view.

    So were all of those who held such views during the time that they were not in line with consensus, “science deniers”?

    Does that mean the 50+ scientists who have joined publicly to the “Third Way” and even Dawkins’ view of pure Neo-Darwinism all science deniers too?

    Shooting yourself in the foot seems to be a common theme lately among materialists. Not that this would ever be recognised nor admitted by them though.

Leave a Reply